You may note that there's a picture of me with the Internet celebrity dudes Rhett and Link. Back in 2011, they did a cross country trek as a part of their move out West in order to set up shop out there. This was an opportunity to meet them, and so they said to bring a "piece of America" along to share.
My piece as a bit of family lore connected to the gusher at Spindletop Texas. Perhaps you all have heard of it. The family lore was about how our ancestors were swindled out of some of that fortune. "Swindletop" was the infamous nickname given to the shenanigans that went on there. Fortunes were made, or were they stolen?
Actually, I never did give much credence to the story, it was only a prop to promote my blog and youtube channel. It didn't work of course.
Over the course of this blog, I am beginning to be of the opinion that swindling is more the rule rather than the exception. No doubt, what is a part of my family lore may also be a part of many others who were cheated out of their fortunes.
I think of this when I read about the next financial debacle. Some believe that we are on the cusp of that right now. If it is true, then I am positioned to gain from it. But what if I cannot collect? What if I am swindled out of my fortune?
History has a tendency of repeating itself, doesn't it?
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Ace: Jurassic World Isn't Just Sexist -- It's Also Racist
The left wingers have an allergy to the truth. When caught in a lie, they just can't admit it. The background of the story is here, which I wasn't familiar with.
I should point out that I was willing to be indulgent with Williams, as it may be possible to make an honest mistake. But you can't make an honest mistake about what Williams said. He had to know that he wasn't being honest when he said what he said. He embellished the story, but he had more serious misrepresentations earlier than that. That indicates a pattern.
His apology can hardly be called one:
Not that the truth matters anymore in postmodern America, though.
I should point out that I was willing to be indulgent with Williams, as it may be possible to make an honest mistake. But you can't make an honest mistake about what Williams said. He had to know that he wasn't being honest when he said what he said. He embellished the story, but he had more serious misrepresentations earlier than that. That indicates a pattern.
His apology can hardly be called one:
Williams appeared on the Today show with Matt Lauer to do a modified limited hang-out -- he admitted the humanizing reason for his transgression (it was "ego-driven") but refused to admit the transgression itself (he won't say he lied).
Not that the truth matters anymore in postmodern America, though.
Blue Origin Spaceport
Not far from "da Ranch"!
Maybe when the rocket scientists are in town, I can flag one down and get an interview one of these days.
Maybe when the rocket scientists are in town, I can flag one down and get an interview one of these days.
Is the Pope a dummy?
Won't be reading the entire thing, no. However, it isn't necessary. You can take snippets of it here and there, and pretty much determine that the Pope is a dope.
How? In reading a snippet from a Forbes writeup, I see that the Pope doesn't understand how a near infinite source of energy is feasible with currently known technology. Also, a basic understanding of chemistry would also help out the poor guy. If you know chemistry, then you know that resources cannot be "used up". You can burn fossil fuels, sure, but these can be recaptured and reused for as long as there are human beings on this planet.
The writeup itself goes into economics, which the Pope doesn't seem to understand either.
Unfortunately, writer at Forbes agrees that man made climate change is a problem, so the real problem is that too many people are ignorant and/or stupid.
How? In reading a snippet from a Forbes writeup, I see that the Pope doesn't understand how a near infinite source of energy is feasible with currently known technology. Also, a basic understanding of chemistry would also help out the poor guy. If you know chemistry, then you know that resources cannot be "used up". You can burn fossil fuels, sure, but these can be recaptured and reused for as long as there are human beings on this planet.
The writeup itself goes into economics, which the Pope doesn't seem to understand either.
Unfortunately, writer at Forbes agrees that man made climate change is a problem, so the real problem is that too many people are ignorant and/or stupid.
Has Limbaugh "grown"?
When a conservative "grows", he becomes more liberal.
So, I ask the question on the topic of homosexuality: has Limbaugh "grown"? The reason I ask this question is that I think he has, and I'm searching for the evidence of it, because I'm sure it exists somewhere. But, I'm not quite finding it.
What I'm referring to is his first two books, which I bought. I'm sure somewhere in them there is a statement to the effect that homosexuals recruit, they aren't "born that way". The latter phrase--"born that way"-- is a latecomer to the discussion. Basically what I recall Rush saying or writing is that they recruit.
There is a short blurb that is supportive of my contention, but it isn't a slam dunk.
So, he might get by, barely on that point.
Lately, Rush seems to be hinting ever so subtly that homosexuals really are "born that way". Again, there's no slam dunk here, but when he claims that they represent only a small proportion of the population, I infer from that that he means to say that they are "born that way", and thus not recruited. Rush may have "grown" more liberal.
My own opinion is that homosexuals want marriage in order to increase their ranks. Give homosexual marriage a seal of approval, and then it becomes okay for them to do things that they couldn't do before. It's not just marriage that is being referred to here. It is the entire continuum of behavior that is under attack.
They know this empowers them, and that's why they want it. It increases their numbers and power. Unfortunately, there are too many people who are unthinkingly giving them this new means to undermine society. It must be resisted firmly.
So, I ask the question on the topic of homosexuality: has Limbaugh "grown"? The reason I ask this question is that I think he has, and I'm searching for the evidence of it, because I'm sure it exists somewhere. But, I'm not quite finding it.
What I'm referring to is his first two books, which I bought. I'm sure somewhere in them there is a statement to the effect that homosexuals recruit, they aren't "born that way". The latter phrase--"born that way"-- is a latecomer to the discussion. Basically what I recall Rush saying or writing is that they recruit.
There is a short blurb that is supportive of my contention, but it isn't a slam dunk.
So, he might get by, barely on that point.
Lately, Rush seems to be hinting ever so subtly that homosexuals really are "born that way". Again, there's no slam dunk here, but when he claims that they represent only a small proportion of the population, I infer from that that he means to say that they are "born that way", and thus not recruited. Rush may have "grown" more liberal.
My own opinion is that homosexuals want marriage in order to increase their ranks. Give homosexual marriage a seal of approval, and then it becomes okay for them to do things that they couldn't do before. It's not just marriage that is being referred to here. It is the entire continuum of behavior that is under attack.
They know this empowers them, and that's why they want it. It increases their numbers and power. Unfortunately, there are too many people who are unthinkingly giving them this new means to undermine society. It must be resisted firmly.
Red tape cont'd
I now am the proud owner of my driving record since the beginning of my driving hees stwa. I now have to jump several other hurdles so that I can receive my license to drive an Ubermobile in the Houston area.
Yay.
Yay.
Women Against Islam
The very premise here is that there is something wrong with being against Islam.
What is inherently wrong about being against Islam?
What is so holy and virtuous about Islam that renders it above all criticism?
Again and again I am struck that by merely telling the truth, you are deemed "controversial" and somehow unacceptable.
Who is the Southern Poverty Law Center? Heck, I don't know. I've heard the name, but I know little of what they do. So, I looked it up briefly and found this to be of interest:
Sounds like a concept called "lawfare", which is akin to warfare, but uses the law to subjugate their enemies. That to me is an abuse of the law, and should be regulated.
As for Julian Bond, I remember watching him on a PBS show once upon a time. He compared calling people "racist" with calling black people "niggers". The comparison is how the use of the namecalling hurt the person being called the name. Now, think about that for a moment. People who merely disagree with them now are frequently being called "racists". The principle here is not against the namecalling itself, but who is feeling the brunt of the abuse, and who is delivering the abuse. If it is wrong to call anybody a bad name, then it is equally wrong to call somebody a "racist", for a "racist" is a bad name to call somebody.
If you are a postmodernist, you will never get the distinction I just made in that last paragraph.
Update:
Since these are bloggers and people who have a legal right to criticize Islam or anything else they choose, it makes me wonder whether or not they are signaling an intention to go on the lawfare warpath against these women.
If so, why would this not be a violation of these women's civil rights?
In other words, the formerly oppressed are now becoming the oppressors.
What is inherently wrong about being against Islam?
What is so holy and virtuous about Islam that renders it above all criticism?
Again and again I am struck that by merely telling the truth, you are deemed "controversial" and somehow unacceptable.
Who is the Southern Poverty Law Center? Heck, I don't know. I've heard the name, but I know little of what they do. So, I looked it up briefly and found this to be of interest:
Civil rights leader Julian Bond joined Dees and Levin and served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.[9] The SPLC's litigating strategy involves filing civil suits for damages on behalf of the victims of hate group harassment, threats, and violence with the goal of financially depleting the responsible groups and individuals [ emphasis added]
Sounds like a concept called "lawfare", which is akin to warfare, but uses the law to subjugate their enemies. That to me is an abuse of the law, and should be regulated.
As for Julian Bond, I remember watching him on a PBS show once upon a time. He compared calling people "racist" with calling black people "niggers". The comparison is how the use of the namecalling hurt the person being called the name. Now, think about that for a moment. People who merely disagree with them now are frequently being called "racists". The principle here is not against the namecalling itself, but who is feeling the brunt of the abuse, and who is delivering the abuse. If it is wrong to call anybody a bad name, then it is equally wrong to call somebody a "racist", for a "racist" is a bad name to call somebody.
If you are a postmodernist, you will never get the distinction I just made in that last paragraph.
Update:
Since these are bloggers and people who have a legal right to criticize Islam or anything else they choose, it makes me wonder whether or not they are signaling an intention to go on the lawfare warpath against these women.
If so, why would this not be a violation of these women's civil rights?
In other words, the formerly oppressed are now becoming the oppressors.
A little humility might be in order
A few thoughts on the subject of how God can exist even though we can't directly perceive him.
Proposition 1: The species of Homo Sapiens is not the ultimate intelligence possible in the continuum of possible intelligences.
If that is not so, then Homo Sapiens are the ultimate intelligence possible, and no further enhancements can be possible. Which of those two statements seems most correct to you? Either we are at the end of the line in evolution, or further evolution is possible. And those species that follow are also subject to becoming obsolete. And so on and so forth. Ultimately, you may reach the end of the line, but is that possible? If there is an end to evolution, could there be an intelligence that is greater still, but cannot be reached? If so, what do you call that intelligence?
This proposition distills down to this: Humans are limited in an unlimited universe.
Proposition 2: Supernatural does not equate with superstition.
Supernatural events, if those events actually occur and are witnessed by sane people, cannot be explained. This only means that science doesn't know what to make of what just happened ( if something happened). Note that the event has to be witnessed by sane people. Somebody who is prone to hallucinations and delusions cannot be considered reliable. Also, the people would have to be serious minded people who have enough character, integrity, and respect for truth in order to tell the truth--- in other words, no pathological liars. Examples? Are there any such recent events that simply cannot be explained? If so, did that event get classified as supernatural? I ask because I don't know. I could do a simple research project to find out, but that is not the purpose of this. The purpose is to distinguish supernatural from superstition. [ note the emphasis on the word distinguish, which is the opposite of postmodern dogma which reduces everything to the same level, since there is no truth in postmodernism according to their own teaching.]
Superstition is a belief in magic or luck. Some shade of meaning may conflate the two words, but a belief in a god doesn't not equate to a belief in magic or luck. To distinguish then: Superstition, as an example, is the belief that if you step on a crack, you break your mother's back. Obviously, there is no connection between the state of mom's back and the crack in the sidewalk, unless she trips on the crack and then her back gets broken in the process. In contrast, an example of a supernatural belief is the belief in the risen Christ. There are those who witnessed him being alive after he was definitely thought to be dead. You can choose to believe that or not. Obviously, the two don't compare, because one has a definite way of proof, while the other does not. The proof relies upon the credibility of the witnesses, and the willingness of those who did not witness the event to believe the witnesses. There is, therefore, a definite connection to an event to the belief.
Proposition 3: Science cannot answer every question.
This is related to Proposition 1. The species of Homo sapiens is limited in what is possible for us to discover. An example is what happens after death? Is there an afterlife? Science cannot answer this question. If science cannot answer every question, then why is it impossible to believe that there is such as thing as the supernatural?
It is quite scientific to allow for the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for what cannot be explained by science.
In summary, then, it can be said that the postmodernists have reduced everything to the same level and thus have made it impossible to distinguish between completely different concepts. It has raised science to the level of a religion while undermining science itself, thus reducing everyone to a bunch of imbeciles. It has puffed up the egos of these imbeciles who do not recognize their own incompetence to make such judgments.
As Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character said: " A man has to know his own limitations."
Update:
How stupid of me. I forgot all about the Shroud of Turin. Now, what if science can never explain the existence of that cloth? Would that make it supernatural?
Proposition 1: The species of Homo Sapiens is not the ultimate intelligence possible in the continuum of possible intelligences.
If that is not so, then Homo Sapiens are the ultimate intelligence possible, and no further enhancements can be possible. Which of those two statements seems most correct to you? Either we are at the end of the line in evolution, or further evolution is possible. And those species that follow are also subject to becoming obsolete. And so on and so forth. Ultimately, you may reach the end of the line, but is that possible? If there is an end to evolution, could there be an intelligence that is greater still, but cannot be reached? If so, what do you call that intelligence?
This proposition distills down to this: Humans are limited in an unlimited universe.
Proposition 2: Supernatural does not equate with superstition.
Supernatural events, if those events actually occur and are witnessed by sane people, cannot be explained. This only means that science doesn't know what to make of what just happened ( if something happened). Note that the event has to be witnessed by sane people. Somebody who is prone to hallucinations and delusions cannot be considered reliable. Also, the people would have to be serious minded people who have enough character, integrity, and respect for truth in order to tell the truth--- in other words, no pathological liars. Examples? Are there any such recent events that simply cannot be explained? If so, did that event get classified as supernatural? I ask because I don't know. I could do a simple research project to find out, but that is not the purpose of this. The purpose is to distinguish supernatural from superstition. [ note the emphasis on the word distinguish, which is the opposite of postmodern dogma which reduces everything to the same level, since there is no truth in postmodernism according to their own teaching.]
Superstition is a belief in magic or luck. Some shade of meaning may conflate the two words, but a belief in a god doesn't not equate to a belief in magic or luck. To distinguish then: Superstition, as an example, is the belief that if you step on a crack, you break your mother's back. Obviously, there is no connection between the state of mom's back and the crack in the sidewalk, unless she trips on the crack and then her back gets broken in the process. In contrast, an example of a supernatural belief is the belief in the risen Christ. There are those who witnessed him being alive after he was definitely thought to be dead. You can choose to believe that or not. Obviously, the two don't compare, because one has a definite way of proof, while the other does not. The proof relies upon the credibility of the witnesses, and the willingness of those who did not witness the event to believe the witnesses. There is, therefore, a definite connection to an event to the belief.
Proposition 3: Science cannot answer every question.
This is related to Proposition 1. The species of Homo sapiens is limited in what is possible for us to discover. An example is what happens after death? Is there an afterlife? Science cannot answer this question. If science cannot answer every question, then why is it impossible to believe that there is such as thing as the supernatural?
It is quite scientific to allow for the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for what cannot be explained by science.
In summary, then, it can be said that the postmodernists have reduced everything to the same level and thus have made it impossible to distinguish between completely different concepts. It has raised science to the level of a religion while undermining science itself, thus reducing everyone to a bunch of imbeciles. It has puffed up the egos of these imbeciles who do not recognize their own incompetence to make such judgments.
As Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character said: " A man has to know his own limitations."
Update:
How stupid of me. I forgot all about the Shroud of Turin. Now, what if science can never explain the existence of that cloth? Would that make it supernatural?
Friday, June 19, 2015
Quick thought before I go: 6/19/15
Somewhere I've heard the saying, or something like it, which goes like this:
If you can't explain it to a six year old, then you really don't know it.
Maybe that is an incorrect recollection. Nevertheless, I think it is valid, at least to some extent. If you cannot make it simple enough for even a child to understand, then you cannot possible understand your subject matter.
I think of this when the man made global warming zealots try to tell the rest of us that we have to trust their priests of the global warming cult that--- only they know the truth and we cannot ever understand it for what it is--- it's just too complex for us. Could it be that they really don't understand it at all, and therefore cannot explain why their claims are correct?
Update:
Albert Einstein is said to have said that.
If you can't explain it to a six year old, then you really don't know it.
Maybe that is an incorrect recollection. Nevertheless, I think it is valid, at least to some extent. If you cannot make it simple enough for even a child to understand, then you cannot possible understand your subject matter.
I think of this when the man made global warming zealots try to tell the rest of us that we have to trust their priests of the global warming cult that--- only they know the truth and we cannot ever understand it for what it is--- it's just too complex for us. Could it be that they really don't understand it at all, and therefore cannot explain why their claims are correct?
Update:
Albert Einstein is said to have said that.
Checking in, 6/19/15
Red tape. It threatens to delay the Uber process. Perhaps not so much red tape as a printer difficulty. For some strange reason, my printer wants to reinstall every time I try to use it. Instead of using the printer to save time, I can still order something by snail mail, but it is going to take 3 weeks to get it.
It may be that Uber will allow me to run, but if I do, there is a risk that the city will impound my vehicle if they catch me. I don't want to run that risk.
So, I can "rassle" with my printer, or just order by snail mail and wait.
It may be that Uber will allow me to run, but if I do, there is a risk that the city will impound my vehicle if they catch me. I don't want to run that risk.
So, I can "rassle" with my printer, or just order by snail mail and wait.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Slipping into darkness?
Yes or No?
The author thinks maybe not. I'm thinking definitely yes. Even the bigwigs of so called conservatism are folding.
There's not much left to fight with.
But I think even one guy is better than none, and I'm going to keep fighting em.
The author thinks maybe not. I'm thinking definitely yes. Even the bigwigs of so called conservatism are folding.
There's not much left to fight with.
But I think even one guy is better than none, and I'm going to keep fighting em.
Quick Post, 6/18/15
When I think of something, I need to write it down, or I'll forget it. Here's something for those of you out there who might be reading this:
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is said to be the light that came into the world. Also, Jesus said that those who listen to the truth listen to him. The truth then, is the light. Also, Jesus said that Satan is the father of all lies. The light is the truth and the darkness is lies, and the darkness is where Satan exists.
Darkness is descending upon America. Ronald Reagan once said that it was morning in America. But the morning has now gone and the evening approaches.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is said to be the light that came into the world. Also, Jesus said that those who listen to the truth listen to him. The truth then, is the light. Also, Jesus said that Satan is the father of all lies. The light is the truth and the darkness is lies, and the darkness is where Satan exists.
Darkness is descending upon America. Ronald Reagan once said that it was morning in America. But the morning has now gone and the evening approaches.
Checking in, 6/18/15
Still working on this Uber thing. Lots to do still. Did manage to get things done, but it is a slow process.
While that is going on, I scanned the news just now. Looks like the left is in triumphant mode right now. Murdoch is stepping down, leaving Fox to his sons, who hate it. The New Republic warns the conservatives not to disregard a Pope's encyclical. ( Never mind what the truth is. ) There is also a warning not to win on Obamacare, because that would be a disaster for the GOP.
In other words, GIVE UP.
Like the Gen. McAulife said in the Battle of the Bulge ----- NUTS!
While that is going on, I scanned the news just now. Looks like the left is in triumphant mode right now. Murdoch is stepping down, leaving Fox to his sons, who hate it. The New Republic warns the conservatives not to disregard a Pope's encyclical. ( Never mind what the truth is. ) There is also a warning not to win on Obamacare, because that would be a disaster for the GOP.
In other words, GIVE UP.
Like the Gen. McAulife said in the Battle of the Bulge ----- NUTS!
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Home again, 6/17/15
What a crashing bore, eh? So what if I'm home. It's boring.
Just plodding along keeping my nose just above water. Nothing exciting here. Nothing to see.
Just checking in to let anyone know who is interested that nothing's wrong. At least for the moment. In the meantime, I have stuff to do. Sorry to be abrupt, but that's it.
Just plodding along keeping my nose just above water. Nothing exciting here. Nothing to see.
Just checking in to let anyone know who is interested that nothing's wrong. At least for the moment. In the meantime, I have stuff to do. Sorry to be abrupt, but that's it.
The ultra subjectivity of post modernism
Hey, if you wanna be black, that's okay even though your skin is white. That ain't no such thing as race, says Abdul Jabbar.
The only thing that matters is that she's on the team.
Oh, yeah. If you are white and you are in the wrong place, you can always say that race is a myth. That would have helped Reginald Denny in the LA Riots back in the nineties. Yeah, right. But what was a factor in the riots? A video tape of a white officer beating a black guy. Race was a just something in their imaginations, I suppose.
Oh, yeah. If you and your spouse are white, then a baby is born black, there's no problem. Nothing to see here.
True is false, and false is true. Welcome to post modern America.
Maybe it isn't subjective. Maybe it is just flat out lying your ass off. That's okay as long as it helps the team.
The only thing that matters is that she's on the team.
The thing about race is that, scientifically, there is no such thing. As far back as 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released the conclusions of an international group of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists that stated that the concept of race was not a scientific entity but a myth.
Oh, yeah. If you are white and you are in the wrong place, you can always say that race is a myth. That would have helped Reginald Denny in the LA Riots back in the nineties. Yeah, right. But what was a factor in the riots? A video tape of a white officer beating a black guy. Race was a just something in their imaginations, I suppose.
Oh, yeah. If you and your spouse are white, then a baby is born black, there's no problem. Nothing to see here.
True is false, and false is true. Welcome to post modern America.
Maybe it isn't subjective. Maybe it is just flat out lying your ass off. That's okay as long as it helps the team.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Home again, 6/16/15
Actually, I've been home for a couple hours. I'm still checking out the requirements for the Uberizing that I'm undergoing.
The insurance and license plates arrived today. Yay. My enthusiasm is overwhelming.
This is getting to be a bit tough, I dare say.
I figured the insurance may be bad, but the bill is a killer. It seems that I have to make a choice about my jobs. Keeping both vehicles is uneconomical, unless I just want to work on Saturdays just to see if I can make a bit of money that way. I'd be lucky to get my money back, I'd say.
Once I enter the info, then I can concentrate on getting licensed by the City of Houston. Yay again.
Actually, that doesn't seem as onerous as it did this morning, but still...
All of this for an experiment. I thought it would be helpful for my El Paso relocation. This had better work now.
The insurance and license plates arrived today. Yay. My enthusiasm is overwhelming.
This is getting to be a bit tough, I dare say.
I figured the insurance may be bad, but the bill is a killer. It seems that I have to make a choice about my jobs. Keeping both vehicles is uneconomical, unless I just want to work on Saturdays just to see if I can make a bit of money that way. I'd be lucky to get my money back, I'd say.
Once I enter the info, then I can concentrate on getting licensed by the City of Houston. Yay again.
Actually, that doesn't seem as onerous as it did this morning, but still...
All of this for an experiment. I thought it would be helpful for my El Paso relocation. This had better work now.
On science and Uber and what not
Just now completed a few chores in preparation for work. It is during this time that I have some thoughts, but afterwards, they can be easily lost and never posted. Sometimes, I wish I had a way to save a thought before it vanishes.
Well, here are a few thoughts:
The above example is only one in many ways that you can dispute "climate science" without having being a "recognized authority" on the subject. But the recognized authorities want you to believe them and not your own senses and brains.
Then they bring in the Pope, the "ultimate" religious authority to lecture us about science. Didn't they do this during Galileo's time? I suppose Galileo was a "gravity" denier. He was put under house arrest for disputing the "settled science" of that day, which happened to wrong, as Galileo was right.
Real science can be rather costly for an individual. Let's say you want to experiment on a drug. You can experiment on YOURSELF, but that may get you killed. It's kinda like the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll wanted an elixir that would help him become more assertive and he ended up succeeding, but at a terrible price. Maybe a fifth of whiskey would have been safer.
I wanted to know about Uber, and now have conducted part of an experiment. Like Dr. Jekyl, I may end feeling very sorry I did. But why did I do it?
I am a scientist, I suppose. I wanted to KNOW.
Well, here are a few thoughts:
- I had a teacher who once defined a scientist as a "seeker of truth". If that's true, then you aren't required to have a document that says that you are a scientist. If you seek truth, you are a scientist. Anybody can be a scientist, then.
- However, there is this demand for standards, so the government steps in and decides who can be a scientist or not. If it isn't the government, then somebody of eminence gets to decide. This authority then defines who is a scientist or not, as opposed to just anybody being a scientist.
- If that person of eminence gets to decide who is a scientist or not, then they have power of the truth ( as it is known and accepted , not necessarily what it really is. )
- In other words, a certification of authority doesn't guarantee anything, especially the truth. Since that certification can be forged, altered, or in some way made for someone who isn't truly qualified to give an opinion on a subject.
The above example is only one in many ways that you can dispute "climate science" without having being a "recognized authority" on the subject. But the recognized authorities want you to believe them and not your own senses and brains.
Then they bring in the Pope, the "ultimate" religious authority to lecture us about science. Didn't they do this during Galileo's time? I suppose Galileo was a "gravity" denier. He was put under house arrest for disputing the "settled science" of that day, which happened to wrong, as Galileo was right.
Real science can be rather costly for an individual. Let's say you want to experiment on a drug. You can experiment on YOURSELF, but that may get you killed. It's kinda like the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll wanted an elixir that would help him become more assertive and he ended up succeeding, but at a terrible price. Maybe a fifth of whiskey would have been safer.
I wanted to know about Uber, and now have conducted part of an experiment. Like Dr. Jekyl, I may end feeling very sorry I did. But why did I do it?
I am a scientist, I suppose. I wanted to KNOW.
Pope's message on you know what
The you know what is this business about man made global warming.
Sigh.
I don't know if it is worthwhile to cite the article in the Washington Post.
Maybe there's just not much hope out there. If the politicians aren't robbing you, somebody else is.
It's a scam. That seems to be the rule today, not the exception. There is no champion for truth, only for the liars.
Sigh.
I don't know if it is worthwhile to cite the article in the Washington Post.
Maybe there's just not much hope out there. If the politicians aren't robbing you, somebody else is.
It's a scam. That seems to be the rule today, not the exception. There is no champion for truth, only for the liars.
Uh-oh
Looks like I overlooked something with this Uber doober thingie.
The City of Houston requires a LICENSE to operate within the city limits. Not only that, but there appears to be a lot of junk you have to go through just to get started. Once you get started, it may be quite a disappointment, because there's too many drivers and not enough riders.
Now this could be a real mess.
One thing at a time, though. I haven't even gotten all my paperwork for the car I bought. Groan.
The City of Houston requires a LICENSE to operate within the city limits. Not only that, but there appears to be a lot of junk you have to go through just to get started. Once you get started, it may be quite a disappointment, because there's too many drivers and not enough riders.
Now this could be a real mess.
One thing at a time, though. I haven't even gotten all my paperwork for the car I bought. Groan.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Ann Barnhardt is okay ( for now )
She finally posted something. That was a long wait. Over two weeks. If I went two weeks without posting, my numbers would go to zero. That's cuz it ain't that far down!
I argued with some of her posts on this here blog. But I find that she seems to be right an awful lot.
One book that she recommended, Four Witnesses, is an excellent read. It is excellent for more reasons than just being well-written. We are being cut off from who we are. We descended from Christians, who earned their position in Western Civilization from the blood of the martyrs. We are forgetting that, and this is no accident.
There is a story that Shakespeare will no longer be on the syllabus. Just another casualty in this war against Western Civilization and how we are being robbed of our inheritance.
Homosexuals cannot trace their ancestry. For they have none.
I argued with some of her posts on this here blog. But I find that she seems to be right an awful lot.
One book that she recommended, Four Witnesses, is an excellent read. It is excellent for more reasons than just being well-written. We are being cut off from who we are. We descended from Christians, who earned their position in Western Civilization from the blood of the martyrs. We are forgetting that, and this is no accident.
There is a story that Shakespeare will no longer be on the syllabus. Just another casualty in this war against Western Civilization and how we are being robbed of our inheritance.
Homosexuals cannot trace their ancestry. For they have none.
The politicians really do have us wrapped around their little finger
They have got us at each other's throats. That's exactly where the politicians want us. For if we are fighting amongst ourselves, they can rule over us. "Divide and conquer" is king, and the spoils belong to them and we pay for it.
Francis Poretto wrote something recently about the racial riots and such. Such things aren't very helpful, and they only go skin deep. One has to keep in mind why the black people are suffering. It's because of their leaders, who blame it all on the white man. It's their leaders and our leaders who are letting us down.
I work around black folks a lot. I think the average black individual "gets it". But they are still going to vote for the same old leaders who are driving them towards despair. They still trust their leaders. By the way, when I say they "get it", I mean that they understand not to get enamored with this modern popular culture. So, many of them don't follow the homosexual marriage fad.
Homosexual marriage is then directed to the white man to drag him down. While the white folks fall for that ploy, the black folks can look down their noses at white people's self immolation. The white folks, in turn, can look down their noses at the black folk's rioting and go "tut, tut". Behind it all are the politicians who are driving all this. Both white and black suffer under the politician's malevolence, but they are led to believe that their troubles are with the rank and file of the other races, when it is the politicians who are at fault.
The politicians won't solve problems. They create them and then they exploit them for their own purposes.
We are getting mad at the wrong people.
Francis Poretto wrote something recently about the racial riots and such. Such things aren't very helpful, and they only go skin deep. One has to keep in mind why the black people are suffering. It's because of their leaders, who blame it all on the white man. It's their leaders and our leaders who are letting us down.
I work around black folks a lot. I think the average black individual "gets it". But they are still going to vote for the same old leaders who are driving them towards despair. They still trust their leaders. By the way, when I say they "get it", I mean that they understand not to get enamored with this modern popular culture. So, many of them don't follow the homosexual marriage fad.
Homosexual marriage is then directed to the white man to drag him down. While the white folks fall for that ploy, the black folks can look down their noses at white people's self immolation. The white folks, in turn, can look down their noses at the black folk's rioting and go "tut, tut". Behind it all are the politicians who are driving all this. Both white and black suffer under the politician's malevolence, but they are led to believe that their troubles are with the rank and file of the other races, when it is the politicians who are at fault.
The politicians won't solve problems. They create them and then they exploit them for their own purposes.
We are getting mad at the wrong people.
Is Hillary a Fembot?
National Review seems to think so. Maybe not a "Fembot", but a robot.
Fembots are better looking, of course.
Fembots are better looking, of course.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
When I Was a Kid, We Were All 'Free Range'
Our parents allowed us more and more independence the older we got based on how well we handled the responsibility. I was "free range" by the time I was three years old
comment:
Me too. Me and my brothers had a lot of freedom when we were growing up. Somehow, we got through it all okay.
comment:
Me too. Me and my brothers had a lot of freedom when we were growing up. Somehow, we got through it all okay.
Salon: Antonin Scalia is unfit to serve
how to go about declaring a magistrate appointed for life of unsound mind and thus unfit to serve?
The writer attempts to make the case that anyone who disagree with leftist dogma is nuts.
The communists in the former Soviet Union used to have insane asylums for the sane. Nuff said.
The writer attempts to make the case that anyone who disagree with leftist dogma is nuts.
The communists in the former Soviet Union used to have insane asylums for the sane. Nuff said.
Obama Admin Moves to Diversify Wealthy Suburbs
"The new HUD rule is really about changing the way Americans live. It is part of a broader suite of initiatives designed to block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars."
comment:
Is this what people voted for in 2008 and 2012? Did Obama run on this in those elections? If he had, would he have won?
comment:
Is this what people voted for in 2008 and 2012? Did Obama run on this in those elections? If he had, would he have won?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)